A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States/Chapter VII
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
During the nineteenth century the electorate in the United States was altered both in character and in number. The increase in the number of the voters was due: first to a great increase in the native population; secondly, to a large immigration from Europe; thirdly, to a removal of many previously existing disqualifications for voting, which reached its culmination in the enfranchising of the negroes. The character of the electorate suffered many changes. In the virtual establishment of manhood suffrage many classes were included who had not developed to such a degree that they could be intrusted with the ballot. The population, which had been rural, was modified by the growth of a large urban class. These great political and industrial changes put a heavy strain on our election machinery. Party spoils, also, became increasingly attractive and led to a wider use of illegitimate means to win elections. The electoral machinery which had been sufficient for the older order proved inadequate. Even before the Civil War there were complaints made that the judgment of the electorate was being subverted by ballot-box stuffing, bribery, and intimidation. In 1851 Massachusetts and Rhode Island tried to secure relief by the passage of the official-envelope law, but the attempt was premature, and the compulsory use of these envelopes was soon abandoned. The absorbing interest in slavery and the war diverted public attention from the canker which had attacked the very roots of democratic government.
In the period of corruption following the Civil War the ballot was made the instrument of even greater abuse. The party bosses controlled the nomination of candidates, prepared and distributed the ballots, conducted the campaign, and often secured the election of their party slate by means of bribery and intimidation. This condition became so notorious that the state legislatures interfered at last, and an attempt was made to curb the grosser forms of abuse. The result is seen in a series of legislative acts. Fifteen states provided that the ballot should be printed on white paper, and that type of a certain size and ink of a particular color should be used. California and Oregon tried to secure a uniform weight and color of paper by requiring the ballots to be printed on paper furnished by the secretary of state. Five states regulated the size of the tickets. These attempts, however, failed to accomplish the desired result, and public opinion finally demanded the abolition of this system and the adoption of a secret official ballot.
The defects of the unofficial ballot can be summarized as follows: first, it was not secret; secondly, there were no means provided by law for the printing and the distributing of the ballots; thirdly, there was no way of protecting the public against eleventh-hour nominations which made an exposure of the candidates impossible; fourthly, the necessarily large expense deterred independent candidates; fifthly, the noise and confusion about the polls was distracting.
The Australian ballot differed from the unofficial ballot in the following particulars: first, all ballots are prepared by state officials and none but the official ballot can be used in public elections; secondly, the manner by which candidates can be nominated is regulated by statute; thirdly, ballots are distributed only by sworn election officers stationed within the polling-place on the day of election; fourthly, the form of the ballot is prescribed by law and all ballots are uniform in any precinct; fifthly, ballots must be marked by the elector in secret, and deposited so that their contents cannot be seen; sixthly, the entire process of the preparation, casting, and counting of the ballots is regulated by statute, and any violation or abuse of this law can be corrected by an appeal to the courts. This judicial control is one of the great differences of the official ballot over the former system.
Every state which has adopted the Australian ballot requires the exclusive use of the official ballot in public elections. Although Governor Hill demanded strenuously the equal right of private organizations to furnish ballots, the use of ballots furnished only by the state is seldom disputed. It is accepted also, practically without question, that the ballots shall be distributed only by sworn clerks stationed within the polling-place on the day of election, and that no ballots shall be taken from the room before the closing of the polls. Delaware has taken, however, a reactionary step by permitting an elector to obtain a ballot in advance of the election from the chairmen of the various political organizations.
The manner of nominating candidates to be placed upon the official ballot has undergone important changes. In the early Australian-ballot acts a party of sufficient size could generally nominate candidates by a primary, caucus, or convention. Then came the period of the mandatory primary, and later, the direct primary. In those states which have adopted the compulsory direct primary the convention, if it exists at all, is only supplementary to the primary law.
The form of the ballot is yet a subject of controversy. The blanket type is almost universal. Missouri is in fact the only state which has abandoned the blanket form for the separate-party ballots. But there is a great controversy between the office-group and the party-column arrangement. At first the office group was the more popular, but from 1891 to about 1900 the party column surpassed its rival. Since 1900 the office group, or Massachusetts form, is again gaining in popularity, but it is impossible to predict the final result. The party circle and emblem are being attacked, and should be abolished. There is little excuse for the party circle and emblem. They are a concession to the ignorant voter, and tend to divert the attention from present-day issues to past traditions. Although the circle and emblem are popular with the party bosses, because they insure a large party vote, they are detrimental to the best public interest.
There is no doubt, however, that our ballot is too long and unwieldy. There are so many officers to be elected that even the most conscientious electors cannot possibly know the merits of all the men, and the average voter knows very few of those for whom he votes. The result is that the citizen votes only for the men he knows, or else he blindly votes for the party slate. The demand of the reformer is stated by Jesse Macy (see article in the Cyclopedia of American Government): “Make the ballot so short and so important that the average citizen must know whom he elects, and then hold those chosen responsible by good appointments to fill all the other state offices. Better centralize power in the hands of a few known and responsible office-holders than leave it in the hands of unauthorized party committees. The people can usually call the former to account, but the latter, never.”
The question is sometimes asked. Has the Australian ballot been a success? To answer this question accurately would require a study of the operation of the ballot in each state by persons familiar with the conditions of the state. It is safe to say, however, that the results achieved by this reform have not measured up to the extreme views of some of its most zealous friends. But it cannot be denied that the Australian ballot has been a decided advance over former systems. It has not made bribery or intimidation impossible, but it has lessened the amount of bribery by removing the knowledge, or proof, that the bribe-taker has delivered the goods. But a number of ways have been found to circumvent the safeguards of the law. One method was to bribe opposition voters to stay away from the polls. Another is known as the “Tasmanian dodge” or “endless chain.” By some method or other an official ballot is removed from the polling-place and is marked by a vote-purchaser on the outside. This marked ballot is given to a bribed elector who votes that ticket and brings back the one given to him by the ballot clerk unmarked. This process is repeated over and over again, and so gets its name of the endless chain. Probably the most effective method of defeating the Australian ballot is by means of the “assisted vote.” By agreement every corrupt elector upon entering the voting-booth claims assistance in preparing his ballot. His ticket is then marked by an election officer, who is in collusion with the purchaser, and the elector is given something in the nature of a token as a proof that the goods have been delivered. The elector can obtain his money upon surrendering his token. As Mr. Kennan shows in his description of Mr. Addicks’ methods in Delaware (Outlook, February 21, 1903), this system destroys the secret ballot. The last resort of a corrupt machine to stave off defeat is in the counting of the votes. The result of the election may be entirely changed by declaring opposition votes to be void because of some alleged defect in the ballot, or by a deliberate miscounting of the total votes for the respective candidates. The laws compelling election boards to be bipartisan has failed to prevent this last abuse. It is of course obvious that the selection of honest officials is an essential of the Australian system or any other system for that matter. The trouble with all of the foregoing methods of defeating the Australian ballot is with the officials and not with the system itself.
In conclusion, it may be said that the Australian ballot is a decided advance toward a realization of true democratic government. While not completely destroying the evils of the unofficial ballot, it mitigated those evils. It has cleared away the obstacles which formerly prevented a free expression of the public will. It has made good government possible if the electors really want it.